A couple of days ago (it’s September 17th 2020) Dr. Robert Redfield, the director of The Center for Disease Control, testified to Congress that universal mask wearing in the US would bring Covid-19 under control in the US in six weeks. He’s has said this before but this time he said it under oath to Congress. Once again, didn’t make a ripple.
Dr. Redfield isn’t your drunk uncle Bob—the CDC is the deep duck in the epidemiology puddle and Redfield is their top guy. They have a budget twice as large as the NIAID (Dr. Fauci’s organization) and collectively know more about controlling infectious diseases than any other organization in the world.
His testimony barely made the papers. Control in six weeks with just masks that you can get for a buck a pop. Not masks plus economy-crippling isolation. Not masks plus vaccine. Not even masks plus elaborate social distancing. Just masks. Anything else you do is gravy. Redfield has made the same statements on camera before and it seems to have had no impact whatsoever. I’m at a loss to explain the lack of reaction. It’s a giant get-out-of-jail-free card for the whole country and the economy. It could save 250,000 more lives in the US this Winter for pocket change and make hundreds of millions of people less poor, bored, and anxious. Yet nobody is interested.
It’s not some pipe dream. His calculation is based on definitive research from a recent study on the efficacy of masks and backed up by practical experience around the world. The calculation is trivial, immediately obvious if you read the research. Moreover, the research would have to be wildly wrong to substantially change Dr. Redfield’s conclusion. Any plausible error would mean only that it wouldn’t be six-weeks, but eight, or twelve. The principle would hold up.
It’s May 16th, 2020, and there’s an undeniable feeling of optimism in the US about Covid-19. A vibe that we’ve got this thing on the run. All over the country businesses are opening up and we’re getting ready for Summer.
I feel like I must be missing something. We all see the same data but to me it looks anything but reassuring. The current numbers look like a failure and a setup for a calamity in the fall.
The conclusion I’ll outline below could be wrong—I hope it’s wrong—but when you look at the larger context it’s such an obvious inference that even if it is wrong, it seems like it should be the default conclusion that the uninformed jump to, the one that people in the know contemptuously debunk, as they do when someone says that “it’s no worse than the flu.” So right or wrong, either way, something seems off.
To see why it looks so bad to me, consider a couple of points first.
In What Sense Is Covid-19 Under Control?
First of all, the widespread conviction that the epidemic is winding down in the US is itself a mystery.
At this writing (2019), the entire history of powered flight from the Wright brothers to the Rosetta spacecraft landing on a comet, is still encompassed by a single lifetime.
Orville Wright’s famous first flight at Kitty Hawk took place in December of 1903, 116 years ago, an age that is is pretty much a hard-stop for humans. In all the world, nobody alive today is older than 116 and indeed, only eight or nine people in history are believed to have lived to 117 years of age or more; only two of those, possibly one, lived longer than 117 years.
Sarah Knauss (1880-1999) of Hollywood PA is reliably confirmed to have lived to the age of 119 years and 97 days, and she may have been the oldest person ever known.
It has long been claimed that Jeanne Calment (1875-1997) of France, lived to 122, but sadly, doubt has been cast on the legitimacy of that claim. It hasn’t exactly been disproven, but Jeanne’s daughter’s death was recorded in 1934 and the contrarian theory is that it was Jeanne who actually died on that date. Skeptics believe that the daughter assumed her identity so that the family could avoid ruinous inheritance taxes. If that’s true, Jeanne would have been not quite sixty when she died in 1934 and the daughter would have been a respectable but hardly remarkable 99 years old when she died in 1997. One counter-argument is that it would have been extraordinarily difficult for a person in provincial France in the 1930’s to get away with assuming the identity of a person of substance. This is surely true, but it would not have been more extraordinary than the statistical freakishness of the longest and next longest human lifespans differing by three years.
Take your choice, either 119 or 122 is the most advanced age ever recorded, but the oldest person alive right now is Kane Tanaka of Japan, who is 116 years old. She was born in Japan in 1903 and when she dies, the age of powered flight will extend beyond human time. Surely Tanaka’s life has spanned the most densely packed 116 years in history.
This sobering article in TheEconomist last year outlined the consequences to expect from a Brexit-without-a-deal. Most of it still applies, but to me, a non-economist, the diversity and magnitude of malign consequences suggests that Brexit could be a more interesting experiment than anyone thinks.
It’s not that we’ve lacked for economic turmoil since the age of inter-networking for business and the general public took off in the late 1980’s, but the problems have been fairly conventional in economic terms. Recessions, bubbles, the CMO meltdown, and so on; none of it has been greatly different from the trouble we’d gotten into for many decades previous.
Brexit brings up the possibility of a truly modern meltdown—an economic calamity that as yet has no name.
Atheists invariably haul out the religious wars of Europe to make the case that religion is pernicious. It is indisputable that from The Age of Faith to the Reformation/Counter Reformation numerous bloody wars and slaughters were committed in the name if the Christian God and there were countless more if you include the wars fought in His second best known name, Allah. It’s not an obviously wacky point.
But hold on there—religious war is monstrous just as all war is monstrous, and it is possible that religion is monstrous as well, but the proposition that wars being fought over religion proves that religion is monstrous is a classic example of what philosophers call “an association fallacy of the red herring type.” The herring, i.e., the thing dragged in that is not logically connected is religion. Helen’s face launched a thousand ships only in a poetic sense; Paris and Agamemnon are to blame for the Trojan war, not Helen, love, or beauty.
Such a fundamentally flawed attack shouldn’t require any defense, but logic isn’t a central concern in religion; Christians consistently fall for this argument and end up defending Christianity from the accusation with words to the effect that “sure, there were wars, but those people weren’t real Christians” or “they weren’t acting consistently with Christian principles.“
This is a terrible argument but not because it’s inherently fallacious. It’s weak because it invites the accuser to apply what is known as the duck test, AKA Occam’s Razor. You’d sneer if I defended, say, Nazism, using the same logic. Try it out: “Nazism didn’t really underly the horrors of the Holocaust; the problem was that bad people coopted a good idea. Let’s let bygones be bygones and give it another chance.” No, the killers were Nazis and the actions were consistent with the principles of Nazism as advocated by the founders, so you can go out on a limb and say Nazism caused the Holocaust. It is logically possible that a small animal that looks like a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is often seen in the company of ducks, is not a duck, but that’s not where a wise ornithologist will take the argument.
Against a cultural background of morbid touchiness about references to gender, race, etc., the word bitch is a lens into what’s going on beneath the fig leaf of political correctness.
Calling a particular person a bitch in private is bad manners but if you disregard all the ostentatious political posturing, the visceral reaction most people have to bitch used in that way isn’t much different from their reaction to gender-neutral epithets such asshole, or to male-specific insults such as prick, or dick. Bitch, used in this way, is an insult to a particular person, and after all, offending is the goal. Bitch is not nearly as shocking to the ears as the c-word-that-dare-not-be-spoken (here in the US, anyway—in the UK cunt is practically a term of endearment when applied to a man.)
Gender-specific insults are tricky but you have to be willfully obtuse to deny that much obnoxious behavior has gender. I’m not talking about the gender of the obnoxious person, but the behavior itself. Being a prick is definitely a yang personality trait and being a bitch is yin, regardless of the sex of the insulted or insulting party. Asshole, on the other hand, is neuter, despite the fact that many more men than women are assholes. Assholes are like happy families but the epithet pig can connote at least three distinct kinds of obnoxiousness, one specific to each gender plus one neuter. I like the gender-specificity of all of these words and usages and doubly applaud their use when the target is not gender-consistent with the epithet. The comprehensibility of cross-gender insults is a sign of progress in the relationship of the sexes.
I had an epiphany about what’s up with people who claim to “believe” things that are manifestly not so. I’m not talking about things people believe that are arguably wrong about or about matters of faith like belief in God or in karma. After all, most of us are wrong about most things most of the time.
The things that I’m talking about are things that you’d think it would be manifestly impossible to believe in good faith. Like saying you “believe” that the Earth is flat, or that two flatly contradictory lines of Scripture are both literally true. Plausibility is subjective but how does one argue with a person who denies the rules of logic?
What the Bible says about how we must treat travelers and refugees in distress does not change by an iota from Leviticus to Luke. The Old Testament and Jesus are perfectly eye-to-eye. The Bible’s position is very simple: cruelty to travelers, immigrants, or strangers is categorically forbidden. Not just cruelty, but indifference as well; both Testaments specifically require believers to actively show refugees and travelers kindness, feed them, take them in, etc., even at one’s own personal expense and inconvenience.
There are really two Christian issues going on with immigration today. The first is how the Bible says Christians must treat refugees, and the second is how the Christian obligation to obey civil laws applies.
The first question couldn’t be easier. Malachi 3:5, (see below) sums it up succinctly. The Lord of Hosts emphatically lumps in people who turn their backs on refugees in need with the lowest of the low. If you don’t speak 17th C. poetical English, in modern terms, the verse is God talking. He is poking His people in the chest with a giant index finger and telling them to be warned, that on Judgement Day, if you’ve been evil to immigrants and refugees, he is going to make it his personal business to be a witness for the prosecution. In that context, you hardly need a specific rule against making an example of refugee families who are applying for asylum by seizing their children and imprisoning the parents without trial; it literally goes without saying. The prophet Malachi presumes the reader is not a complete idiot. Continue reading “My Evangelical Friends!”→